China reportedly enjoyed a record trade surplus of US$14.5 billion in June, signaling a deepening dependency on foreign markets for its stellar economic prosperity and, in turn, for its domestic stability that has been plagued by growing unrest.
That same month, Chinese military personnel were invited for the first time to observe the US' annual military exercises in the Western Pacific, dubbed Valiant Shield 2006. The purpose ostensibly was to impress upon the Chinese the scale of the US' military might.
On the surface, those two events have little in common, save for the fact that they were both record-setting events. But a closer look would reveal that they are manifestations of Washington's two-pronged approach -- economic interdependence and military transparency -- to stem Beijing's warlike instincts.
But all these efforts cannot make up for the fact that the long-term health of Sino-American relations hinges on a successful resolution of the cross-strait issue that is acceptable to Taiwan, China, Japan and the US, a requisite made paramount by the US' Taiwan Relations Act, China's "Anti-Secession" Law and the mutual concern of the US-Japan alliance.
Given that Beijing has yet to comprehend the merits of this notion, measures must be taken to ensure a stable environment in Taiwan that can persist for an indefinite period until a final settlement materializes.
What's needed is the implementation of an understated version of formal sovereignty for Taiwan that would address the nation's continuing reluctance to fortify its own defense but would not cause Beijing to "lose face" internationally.
The only subject that can be included in any new Taiwanese Constitution to qualify for this purpose might be the definition of Taiwan's territory.
The beauty of this is unlike calls for changing the national name or national flag, there would be no new element added to the "status quo" and, as far as the international community is concerned, neither would there be any discernible changes -- the key to removing or at least rendering insignificant chances of embarrassing Beijing.
By keeping the controversial topic of the country's name -- Republic of China (ROC) -- off the table, achieving an internal accord on territorial definition shouldn't be insurmountable.
Absent of manipulation by politicians with ulterior motives, the prospect of a nationwide referendum affirming the territorial definition is bright considering that the subject -- namely, the land on which they subsist -- is close to the heart of all Taiwanese.
To avoid potential manipulation by unscrupulous politicians, this plebiscite should be championed as a healing process for a society that has been polarized far too long.
Aside from giving the pan-green camp the satisfaction of gaining some recognition for an independent Taiwanese state, the pan-blues could take solace in the fact that the name "ROC" would remain intact and, as a consequence, the pan-greens would have to live with the name for an indefinite period of time.
Morever, the existence of a codified territorial definition could satisfy in part the public's yearning for sovereignty -- a victory in substance if not in appearance for Beijing.
Without conceding anything, Beijing would be rewarded with at least a partial removal of the thorniest obstacle in Sino-American relations.
This would be especially true if Beijing could show great restraint befitting a confident, prospective superpower during the transition when Taiwan fractionally formalizes the "status quo" and settles into the long haul of stable coexistence with China.
Taiwan should take its own security seriously. The public and the military, in particular, would for the first time in decades realize that they have a definite territory to defend. That can only bode well for regional stability.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing